You're the one that can't prove the theory of evolution.
paddler/dbt, the guy that's n your side, posted that if scientists agree something is true, like the theory of evolution, then it must be true.
That's the same argument proposed in support of AGW, and we all know that's bullshit.
If you want to waste your time arguing with paddler, that's your business.
I've just pointed out the fallacy in his argument in support of the theory of evolution, just as I pointed out the fallacy in your theories of micro- and macroevolution.
All you've done is highlight your ignorance on the subject.
Your faith compels you to reply in such a fashion.
But you can relax. I'm not trying to convert you.
My side doesn't need faith.
We have the fossils, we have the DNA.
You have a book written by bronze age goat herders.
What ignorant hokum. All knowledge is ultimately dependent on some degree of faith. But in the case of materialists in particular, the whole theory is self-refuting since materialism denies even the possibility of ascertaining scientific truth since it denies the possibility of the metaphysical freedom of the mind. But if human thought is not free from material causes then the very idea of scientific (or any kind of truth) is rendered non-sensical.
Naturally, I part ways with Ra on the issue of religion, but he's really good at debunking Creationists.
Except that isn't much good at all. Just another fringe wannabe who uses his material to comfort theists but is ignored by the vast majority who work in the field, or anyone who has actually taken the trouble to study evolution or knows how science works.
You're the one that can't prove the theory of evolution.
paddler/dbt, the guy that's n your side, posted that if scientists agree something is true, like the theory of evolution, then it must be true.
That's the same argument proposed in support of AGW, and we all know that's bullshit.
If you want to waste your time arguing with paddler, that's your business.
I've just pointed out the fallacy in his argument in support of the theory of evolution, just as I pointed out the fallacy in your theories of micro- and macroevolution.
All you've done is highlight your ignorance on the subject.
Your faith compels you to reply in such a fashion.
But you can relax. I'm not trying to convert you.
My side doesn't need faith.
We have the fossils, we have the DNA.
You have a book written by bronze age goat herders.
What ignorant hokum. All knowledge is ultimately dependent on some degree of faith. But in the case of materialists in particular, the whole theory is self-refuting since materialism denies even the possibility of ascertaining scientific truth since it denies the possibility of the metaphysical freedom of the mind. But if human thought is not free from material causes then the very idea of scientific (or any kind of truth) is rendered non-sensical.
You are still equivocating. Faith is defined as a belief held without the support of evidence. If verifiable evidence exist and a belief is based on verifiable evidence, it is not - by definition - a faith based belief.
[Except that isn't much good at all. Just another fringe wannabe who uses his material to comfort theists but is ignored by the vast majority who work in the field, or anyone who has actually taken the trouble to study evolution or knows how science works.
Not true. Please do your research before making these claims.
The fossil record is thoroughly unDarwinian. Stephen Gould called it the "trade secret of paleontology". Even Darwin recognized the lack of transitionals in the fossil record and conceded it was a problem. However he held out hope that with more digging, the missing transitionals would be found. But they have not been found, which is why Gould and Eldredge had to posit punctuated equilibrium as theoretical patch to try to reconcile Neo-Darwinism with the disconfirming fossil record. The overwhelming characteristic of the fossil record is stasis, not change, which was what Darwinism predicts.
A lot has happened since Darwin began developing his ideas on evolution based on observation. You use the language of creationist organizations. It is not a view held by the vast majority of researchers who work in the field.
''There are numerous examples of transitional forms in the fossil record, providing an abundance of evidence for change over time. Pakicetus (below left), is described as an early ancestor to modern whales. ... These fossil organisms represent branches on the tree and not a direct line of descent leading to modern horses.
Transitional forms
Fossils or organisms that show the intermediate states between an ancestral form and that of its descendants are referred to as transitional forms. There are numerous examples of transitional forms in the fossil record, providing an abundance of evidence for change over time.
Pakicetus (below left), is described as an early ancestor to modern whales. Although pakicetids were land mammals, it is clear that they are related to whales and dolphins based on a number of specializations of the ear, relating to hearing. The skull shown here displays nostrils at the front of the skull.
A skull of the gray whale that roams the seas today (below right) has its nostrils placed at the top of its skull. It would appear from these two specimens that the position of the nostril has changed over time and thus we would expect to see intermediate forms.
[Except that isn't much good at all. Just another fringe wannabe who uses his material to comfort theists but is ignored by the vast majority who work in the field, or anyone who has actually taken the trouble to study evolution or knows how science works.
2. There are many cases of species changing into other cpecies, and fossils keep getting found that are "missing links" between different forms. "Gaps" get smaller with each discoveery.
That's an amazing thing, if not a bit ironic.
Land mammals evolving to live in the water. Their long distant predecessors evolved to get out of the water.
Originally Posted by mauserand9mm
Originally Posted by mauserand9mm
Originally Posted by Raspy
Whatever you said...everyone knows you are a lying jerk.
That's a bold assertion. Point out where you think I lied.
materialism vs Darwinism. Now we are conflating philosophy/politics/morals with physical science/biology.
once again: one has no relevance to the other.
Materialism dictates that a naturalistic theory is the only acceptable one. Given a materialist premise (starting point) something akin to Darwinism must be true virtually as a matter of logic.
2. There are many cases of species changing into other cpecies, and fossils keep getting found that are "missing links" between different forms. "Gaps" get smaller with each discoveery.
That's an amazing thing, if not a bit ironic.
Land mammals evolving to live in the water. Their long distant predecessors evolved to get out of the water.
A creationist site that talks about cherry picking....that's irony for you.
And one of the authors;
''William Dembski is one of the main pushers of the pseudoscience of intelligent design, specifically his unfalsifiable concept of "specified complexity".
Unusual for a creationist, he does in fact have some actual credentials: a Ph.D in mathematics from the University of Chicago, a Ph.D in philosophy from the University of Illinois at Chicago, and a Masters of Divinity from Princeton Theological Seminary. Now, if only one of those fine institutions recognized Intelligent Design as being anything but an absolute hodgepodge of nonsense, he'd be set
Dembski has written a bunch of convoluted books about intelligent design, including The Design InferenceWikipedia's W.svg (1998), Intelligent Design: The Bridge Between Science & TheologyWikipedia's W.svg (1999), The Design RevolutionWikipedia's W.svg (2004), The End of Christianity (2009), and Intelligent Design Uncensored (2010).
Interestingly, none of his qualifications in any way relate to the natural sciences. He once held a non-tenured position at Baylor University but was fired for being an all-around jerk (he maintains that he was dismissed in order to discredit or censor the research of his newly-founded Evolutionary Informatics Lab). ''
Dictionaries tend to reflect common usage, where words are used as blanket terms or a wide range of references. Trust may be built or destroyed on direct experience with someone or something, which is evidence based. On the other hand, someone may be convinced that Brahman is the creator of the universe, so we are clearly not talking about the same thing regardless of whether you use the same word, faith, in both examples. If you do, you are either being sloppy or equivocating.
Prove that it is pseudoscience instead of being an echo chamber for someone who, like yourself who is afraid to confront the actual arguments. If its pseudoscience you should have no trouble responding to the merits of the article! That is how science and logic work. The fact that all you can't---that all you can do is call names and regurgitate someone elses's concession of impotence is tantamount to an admission of surrender. You're embarrassing yourself.
Prove that it is pseudoscience instead of being an echo chamber for someone who, like yourself who is afraid to confront the actual arguments. If its pseudoscience you should have no trouble responding to the merits of the article! That is how science and logic work. The fact that all you can't---that all you can do is call names and regurgitate someone elses's concession of impotence is tantamount to an admission of surrender. You're embarrassing yourself.
I not the one quoting from biased creationist material, written by authors who are not qualified, who are dismissed as cranks by the vast majority of scientists who actually do the research.
The evidence for evolution is readily available, I have posted links and quotes that outline the case for evolution. But that is all ignored.
Once again, it is not my evidence or my argument, but the situation as it actually stands. Only a small minority of academics question the evidence and most of those are not qualified, they are first and foremost, creationists.
What I am doing is nothing more than pointing out that evolution is well supported by evidence and that there are problems with faith based belief. That's all. There is no shifting from this or that, what I said was and still is related to that issue.
"There are problems with faith-based belief??"
That has to be the most arrogant statement you've made so far, and it's also demonstrably false.
Faith-based belief is by definition based on faith, not evidence or science. What "problems" do you have with someone else's faith?
Faith-based belief is by definition based on faith, not evidence...
You don't see the problem with that?
Whether there's a "problem" depends entirely on what the faith-based belief is.